Berlin art criticism with marginal glosses by Quidam
Berliner Kunstkritik mit Randglossen is a work published by Julius Stinde (1841–1905) under the pseudonym Quidam, which was published in October 1883 by the Berlin publishing house Freund & Jeckel.
description
The publisher has set the year of publication on the title page to 1884 for technical reasons. The book deals with the reviews that appeared in Berlin newspapers on the occasion of the 56th academic art exhibition in 1883.
"Considered in its entirety, this criticism offers such a peculiar picture of disorganization, irregularity, contradiction and arbitrariness that the critics themselves hardly believe possible."
Stinde has compiled over 400 individual judgments from 16 newspapers and added the abbreviations of the critics quoted so that critical readers can check the accuracy of the quotations. In front of it are four pages of “initial considerations” and at the end there is a collection of style flowers, twelve pages “final consideration” and a “register of curiosities”, which also contains the names of the artists discussed. This compilation was intended to demonstrate the uselessness and redundancy of art criticism in newspapers.
Impact history
A dispute between Karl Frenzel and Anton von Werner in the National-Zeitung followed the “Berlin Art Criticism” , which was also echoed in other publications.
Karl Frenzel had reviewed the book in the morning edition of the National-Zeitung of November 23, 1883 and pointed to “the complete subjectivity of all aesthetic judgments” and in the course of his review wrote: “That the criticism contradicts itself - quite apart from the fact that it is itself out of necessity, precisely because of the different individuality the critic has to contradict - offers the artists the only guarantee to unfold and develop. ”And further:“ Praising or reproaching, what is the main thing, makes the audience of individual works in the Exhibition attentive. The artists, who declare every critic who blames them to be an unreasonable and impudent intruder into their field and whoever praises them to be an art authority of the first order, should imagine what would happen if the entire art criticism of Berlin, from Ludwig Pietsch to down to the smallest art reporter in the smallest newspaper, would only not stroke a pen for their immortality for a quarter of a year. "Frenzel even puts criticism above artistry when he writes:" While his activity is incomparably more useful for cultural history than hundreds of others Dozen landscapes and dozen portraits; while the diligence and intellectual effort that he has to put into it far exceeds the work and time that a Fa Presto needs among the artists to cover a huge canvas with colors with the help of two or three photographs, every apprentice believes himself who picks up the pallet is entitled to throw a fool on his head. "
Finally, Frenzel allowed himself to make another provocative claim: the artists stood at his doorbell every day. In the wording: “Criticism calmly shrugs its shoulders at all this talk in the wind: it knows that completely different sizes and talents [. . .] hat in hand, appearing at their doorbell every day. ”This should be an allusion to the fact that all Berlin critics had received tickets for the opening of the Sedan panorama created by Anton von Werner . Immediately afterwards, the "Berliner Panorama-Gesellschaft" felt compelled to emphasize in a correction
"That Mr. von Werner had absolutely no influence on the invitations in question."
Anton von Werner describes the consequences of this essay by Frenzel in detail in his memoir:
“The art exhibition, which was well stocked this year despite its temporary arrangement in the new building of the Polytechnic, had a funny result in the form of a book published in November with the title: 'Berlin Art Criticism with Marginal Glosses by Quidam'. It contained a compilation of about 400 of the most contradicting descriptions and reviews of the same works of art from the various Berlin newspapers, which appeared extraordinarily funny in that one critic said the exact opposite of what another said, or believed he had seen what another claimed - a Process that can be observed every day in the field of concert and theater critics. Why the art experts of some Berlin newspapers got upset about the humorous little book in the first place was made clear by an article in the national newspaper, K. Fr., signed, which attacked the artists in an immoderate manner and in which it was claimed, among other things, that the author every day see an artist at his doorbell. Apparently the author of the book was suspected to be a visual artist, while the well-known author of the Buchholz family, Julius Stinde, was hiding behind the pseudonym Quidam. There was great excitement in the artists' association about the article in the national newspaper, and I was prompted to respond, which happened most sharply because I had exhibited myself (footnote: The portrait of the court preacher Dr. Emil Frommel ) and was entitled to the matter personally to take. When the author, who was actually unknown to me under the cipher K. Fr., wrote to me as Karl Frenzel that he did not mean me - which assurance it certainly did not need - but thought of examples from long ago known to him, I was allowed to Be convinced that the esteemed novelist had only allowed himself to be carried away into his attack on the artists by a misleading assumption about Quidam's personality, which, however, had not given the slightest cause, because the brochure contained only a compilation of the contradicting reviews of the works of art on display . "
After a few anecdotal insertions related to the topic, Anton von Werner comes back to the main scandal of the Frenzel article on page 393: “Another more serious question than that of the doorbell aroused the Berlin artists at the time, who, as an illustration on the topic of 'art scholars contra artists': the disproportion between the 4,795,000 Marks set in the Extraordinarium of the State Budget Act 1884/85 for the Berlin museums and later also approved by the State Parliament and the - 4918 Marks for the Berlin Art Academy. This and the bell door question were used in a funny way at the academics Christmas party, which took place on December 8th in the Philharmonie and which was also a homage to the popular Professor Bellermann on his 50th anniversary as an artist. During the festival, Bellermann's stay in Venezuela, where he went at the instigation of Alexander v. Humboldt had been sent 30 years ago, treated and in the final scene a beautiful bronze clock was honored by the students in view of his wreathed bust set up in the tropical forest decoration. The mood of the evening was dominated by the conflict between artists and critics, which was then expressed in sometimes very sharp jokes. A very special one from the chemist Dr. Jacobsen enthusiastically applauded the song that followed the lyrics to one of Kate Greenaway 's most beloved children's pictures : 'Five little sisters. . . ' was copied and therefore read: Five little critics, all 'in a row', everyone has a doorbell, an artist is there ”.
The matter has been reported in many newspapers. In the Breslauer Zeitung from 7./9. December 1883 Heinrich Hart wrote about the "duel":
“Karl Frenzel is in a very similar situation [as the court preacher Stöcker]. This man became a writer, although his whole being, external and internal, predestined him to be a privy councilor. How uncomfortable it must be for such a cool person to suddenly appear to the public as a fighting cock. And that's how it happened. Some artist, whom the latest art exhibition probably did not help to achieve the immortality he had dreamed of, had a brochure go out as Quidam in which he presented the judgments of the critics of that exhibition in the full glory of its contradictions. This little work went largely unnoticed outside of the art circles until Mr. Frenzel broke a lance for the subjectivity of every aesthetic judgment and at the same time gave the vanity of the artist a few rude puffs. Among other things, he asserted that without the criticism and its propaganda, art must be as good as begging. Everyone was wondering what cause the academic columnist's pious milk could turn into fermenting dragon poison. This amazement grew when an equally academic, secretive painter felt called to ride into the bar as a representative of art and to accept the glove that Mr. Frenzel threw down - namely, Anton von Werner. The latter made the fight quite easy for himself. If the critic had said, without giving too many reasons, that any criticism was subjective and unfounded in terms of taste, Herr von Werner immediately replied apodictically: There is no vacillation in art, the artist knows exactly what is bad or good is; if he had thrown all kinds of sharp needles around him, the painter trumped himself with all kinds of complacency, yes, I think he let something like future immortality shimmer through. Unfortunately that ended the duel. Mr. Frenzel once again felt the privy councilor awakening within himself and, I hear, contented himself with accepting a conciliatory letter from the academy director, which the latter probably also wrote with a touch of remorse about the lost white-bound dignity. "
In the Kladderadatsch , of which Julius Stinde was one of the contributors, read:
“Quidam! Who the hell is Quidam? Well what is it to us in the end. As long as Quidam only messes with art critics, let him roar as much as he likes. But if he should ever dare to turn to the literary critics - and he is perhaps careless enough - we will illuminate him in such a way that hearing and seeing will pass him by. He's supposed to write books himself; well, woe to him if then a book he wrote should fall into our hands! We have already completed a review of the same in our heads, which begins with the words: 'The name Quidam has remained a terrible memory.' After we have plucked all the good hair out of him, we conclude: 'If the name Quidam should come across us again - no matter how beautiful it was on paper and in no matter how beautiful the cover - we won't read anything from him again. This time it was the last time. '"
Also Fontane deals with the dispute. He writes to Friedrich Stephany :
“What do you have to say about the feud between Karl Frenzel and Anton v. Werner said? It is of course only a storm in a glass of water, and the Tonkin or the brew request is more important. But as important as a small matter can be, it is just as important. The question will not fall asleep again, because it contains something of revolutionary power and will not rest until the pretensions of the world of color complex, which have become more and more immoderate for twenty years, have been reduced to a correct and sensible level. See the Werner letter as a topping. Is that a language! Think about Frenzel however you want: under all circumstances he is a very clever, very clever, very well-informed little man who has long since worn out all of Werner's wisdom on the soles of his shoes. And Pittore, who was stung by the tarantula, takes on this man and gives him a lecture on artistic aesthetics. Make his point of view clear to him, so to speak. Doll. The art critics have a lot on their conscience, but compared to the nonsense the painters themselves let loose, it's demigods. Such an affront, which in the person of Frenzel happens to the whole press, is only possible in Germany. In Paris a painter who dared to write like this would be well lit at home. "
Individual evidence
- ^ Julius Stinde: Berliner Kunstkritik (1884), p. 5
- ^ National-Zeitung, morning edition, December 2, 1883, 1st supplement, p. 3
- ^ Anton von Werner: Experiences and memories 1870-1890, Mittler, Berlin 1913, p. 390 f.
- ↑ Heinrich Hart: Mongol hordes in the zoological garden. Berlin letters. Published by Lars-Broder Keil. Structure of Taschenbuch Verlag, Berlin 2005, pp. 125–126.
- ↑ Kladderadatsch , Vol. 36, 1883, No. 56, 1st Supplement, from December 9, 1883
- ^ Theodor Fontane: Letters to his friends. Volume 2. S. Fischer, Berlin 1925, pp. 86-87.
Web links
- About Julius Stinde's pseudonym "Quidam" ( Memento from June 6, 2011 in the web archive archive.today )